I looked it up and it was Sting's accountant (whose name is Keith Moore) and not a manager that he took to court for the money issue.
[Edited 4/30/11 22:19pm]
You can take a black guy to Nashville from right out of the cotton fields with bib overalls, and they will call him R&B. You can take a white guy in a pin-stripe suit who’s never seen a cotton field, and they will call him country. ~ O. B. McClinton
Sting & Billy were ripped off by managers. I don't remember the details of Sting's case, but Billy fired and sued his then manager Frank Weber in the late 1980's. There are also big name shady managers like Allen Klein, Doc McGhee, and Don Arden (who is Sharon Osbourne's father). Hall & Oates used to be managed by Tommy Matolla in the 1970's and they didn't much care for him, and even wrote a song about him called Gino. George Harrison had problems with a business partner who was in charge of George's movie company Handmade Films. So I don't see how Mick changed anything about the behind the scenes people.
[Edited 4/30/11 21:25pm]
hmmm, you're right but we can't forget that Mick destroyed the crooks of "his" era; by 1971, the Stones were a completely independent band with their albums distributed worldwide by Atlantic. On the other hand, there was Bowie losing his time (and money) with that ugly, evil manager (I don't even remember his name, f*ck him)
Mick showed the way, it's too bad that many bands/artists lost control of their money/music/(life?) again by the late-70's/early-80's...
Sting & Billy were ripped off by managers. I don't remember the details of Sting's case, but Billy fired and sued his then manager Frank Weber in the late 1980's. There are also big name shady managers like Allen Klein, Doc McGhee, and Don Arden (who is Sharon Osbourne's father). Hall & Oates used to be managed by Tommy Matolla in the 1970's and they didn't much care for him, and even wrote a song about him called Gino. George Harrison had problems with a business partner who was in charge of George's movie company Handmade Films. So I don't see how Mick changed anything about the behind the scenes people.
[Edited 4/30/11 21:25pm]
hmmm, you're right but we can't forget that Mick destroyed the crooks of "his" era; by 1971, the Stones were a completely independent band with their albums distributed worldwide by Atlantic. On the other hand, there was Bowie losing his time (and money) with that ugly, evil manager (I don't even remember his name, f*ck him)
Mick showed the way, it's too bad that many bands/artists lost control of their money/music/(life?) again by the late-70's/early-80's...
I think Mick was the rare case of a musician that could be bothered to follow the money. He did study at the London School of Economics so presumably he had some interest/aptitude in dealing with money. The vast, vast majority of musicians are content to let someone else handle their money and consequently a lot of them get screwed.
It does seem ridiculous that every generation of musicians forgets the lessons that the previous generation teaches them. You would think that after how badly the first wave of rock musicians got screwed in the '50s that by the '60s people would be a bit smarter but that doesn't seem to be the case. Today we have 360 deals where the labels have decided to squeeze artists from every conceivable money stream.
hmmm, you're right but we can't forget that Mick destroyed the crooks of "his" era; by 1971, the Stones were a completely independent band with their albums distributed worldwide by Atlantic. On the other hand, there was Bowie losing his time (and money) with that ugly, evil manager (I don't even remember his name, f*ck him)
Mick showed the way, it's too bad that many bands/artists lost control of their money/music/(life?) again by the late-70's/early-80's...
I think Mick was the rare case of a musician that could be bothered to follow the money. He did study at the London School of Economics so presumably he had some interest/aptitude in dealing with money. The vast, vast majority of musicians are content to let someone else handle their money and consequently a lot of them get screwed.
It does seem ridiculous that every generation of musicians forgets the lessons that the previous generation teaches them. You would think that after how badly the first wave of rock musicians got screwed in the '50s that by the '60s people would be a bit smarter but that doesn't seem to be the case. Today we have 360 deals where the labels have decided to squeeze artists from every conceivable money stream.
hmmm, you're right but we can't forget that Mick destroyed the crooks of "his" era; by 1971, the Stones were a completely independent band with their albums distributed worldwide by Atlantic. On the other hand, there was Bowie losing his time (and money) with that ugly, evil manager (I don't even remember his name, f*ck him)
Mick showed the way, it's too bad that many bands/artists lost control of their money/music/(life?) again by the late-70's/early-80's...
I think Mick was the rare case of a musician that could be bothered to follow the money. He did study at the London School of Economics so presumably he had some interest/aptitude in dealing with money. The vast, vast majority of musicians are content to let someone else handle their money and consequently a lot of them get screwed.
It does seem ridiculous that every generation of musicians forgets the lessons that the previous generation teaches them. You would think that after how badly the first wave of rock musicians got screwed in the '50s that by the '60s people would be a bit smarter but that doesn't seem to be the case. Today we have 360 deals where the labels have decided to squeeze artists from every conceivable money stream.
Word on both statements. Mick was definitely smart when it came to business.
a) he started his career (with the Stones) in 1962, so he could be considered a legend just as important as Chuck, Little Richard, Elvis, etc.
way out of bounds. Little Richard and Elvis are nice, but Chuck D really is a league of his own.
b) his band made some of the best covers of all time, updating the 40s and 50s music for the future. Enter the era of "postmodernism"
they slaughthered so many classics, however, their cover versions still trump their piss poor attempts at song writing
c) he's one of the best songwriters of all time. Perhaps the best, only surpassed by Lennon/Macca. With limited piano/guitar skills he wrote or co-wrote a lot of masterpieces in the 60s and 70s...that's what popular songwriting is about.
with "Satsifaction" he co-wrote the most boring simplistic and overrated song in rock history, but "perfectly" fitting to his limited vocal abilities and range. and it went all downhill from there...
sorry, I was unable to read the rest of your post
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Nonsense. David Bowie's smarter, more charismatic, more daring, and more versitle.
And John was a crap songwriter without Paul's help. Notice that his contributions to the White Album (Revolution 9, Goodnight, Happiness is a Warm Gun) are W.E.A.K compared to Paul's (U.S.S.R, Birthday, Helter Skelter, Blackbird)
Nonsense. David Bowie's smarter, more charismatic, more daring, and more versitle.
And John was a crap songwriter without Paul's help. Notice that his contributions to the White Album (Revolution 9, Goodnight, Happiness is a Warm Gun) are W.E.A.K compared to Paul's (U.S.S.R, Birthday, Helter Skelter, Blackbird)
Hmm, how many units has Bowie shifted vs. Jagger? I love Bowie but for huge stretches of his career he has basically been on the fringes of popular music. He's hugely influential but as a pop star I don't think he is in the same league as Mick. Yes, the Let's Dance album was huge but if you look at his whole career it's very tough to make an argument that he is on par with Jagger in terms of being a pop star.
I also disagree with your assessment of Lennon. While I do think that Paul's contributions to the Beatles are often underappreciated I don't think that means that John was "a crap songwriter." It's probably fair to say that Paul eclipsed John as a songwriter in the last few years that the Beatles existed but John wrote more than his fair share of terrific songs. I also think a good argument could be made that John kept the "cutesiness" of Paul's songs to a minimum. For me the reason that John and Paul were so much better together than apart is because of the way they complimented each other.
And John was a crap songwriter without Paul's help. Notice that his contributions to the White Album (Revolution 9, Goodnight, Happiness is a Warm Gun) are W.E.A.K compared to Paul's (U.S.S.R, Birthday, Helter Skelter, Blackbird)
Paul wrote "When I'm Sixty-Four" so he auto-loses.
And John was a crap songwriter without Paul's help. Notice that his contributions to the White Album (Revolution 9, Goodnight, Happiness is a Warm Gun) are W.E.A.K compared to Paul's (U.S.S.R, Birthday, Helter Skelter, Blackbird)
Paul wrote "When I'm Sixty-Four" so he auto-loses.
yeah and Stevie Wonder wrote "I just called to say I love you" still he's the best of all times
good lawd, Paul wrote this when he was sixteen. SIXTEEN!! ....and he needed the money
seriously, Lennon did some outstanding works, but also lots of boring hit'n miss and throwaways. Paul is way more consistent, despite the occasional schmaltz and kiddie stuff
[Edited 5/4/11 0:30am]
If you want to make God laugh, tell him your plans.
Paul wrote "When I'm Sixty-Four" so he auto-loses.
yeah and Stevie Wonder wrote "I just called to say I love you" still he's the best of all times
good lawd, Paul wrote this when he was sixteen. SIXTEEN!! ....and he needed the money
seriously, Lennon did some outstanding works, but also lots of boring hit'n miss and throwaways. Paul is way more consistent, despite the occasional schmaltz and kiddie stuff
[Edited 5/4/11 0:30am]
McCartney had more of a knack for melody, whereas Lennon had the greater substance, even if he came across as a pretentious git a lot of the time in the seventies.
a) he started his career (with the Stones) in 1962, so he could be considered a legend just as important as Chuck, Little Richard, Elvis, etc.
way out of bounds. Little Richard and Elvis are nice, but Chuck D really is a league of his own.
they slaughthered so many classics, however, their cover versions still trump their piss poor attempts at song writing
c) he's one of the best songwriters of all time. Perhaps the best, only surpassed by Lennon/Macca. With limited piano/guitar skills he wrote or co-wrote a lot of masterpieces in the 60s and 70s...that's what popular songwriting is about.
with "Satsifaction" he co-wrote the most boring simplistic and overrated song in rock history, but "perfectly" fitting to his limited vocal abilities and range. and it went all downhill from there...
with "Satsifaction" he co-wrote the most boring simplistic and overrated song in rock history, but "perfectly" fitting to his limited vocal abilities and range. and it went all downhill from there...
with "Satsifaction" he co-wrote the most boring simplistic and overrated song in rock history, but "perfectly" fitting to his limited vocal abilities and range. and it went all downhill from there...
sorry, I was unable to read the rest of your post
You just don't "get" rock, do you
Now I'm older than movies, Now I'm wiser than dreams, And I know who's there
When silhouettes fall
with "Satsifaction" he co-wrote the most boring simplistic and overrated song in rock history, but "perfectly" fitting to his limited vocal abilities and range. and it went all downhill from there...
sorry, I was unable to read the rest of your post
You just don't "get" rock, do you
Agreed! No, he doesn't!
"Music gives a soul to the universe, wings to the mind, flight to the imagination and life to everything." --Plato
with "Satsifaction" he co-wrote the most boring simplistic and overrated song in rock history, but "perfectly" fitting to his limited vocal abilities and range. and it went all downhill from there...
sorry, I was unable to read the rest of your post
You just don't "get" rock, do you
No he doesn't. If you seen his posts, you know he doesn't.
New topic
Printable
Report post to moderator
Not Chuck D. 
not until you put a disclaimer on top: this thread is only intended for people who agree with me 